As procurement leaders embrace modular, API-driven tech stacks, a familiar risk is returning: integration without orchestration. Flexibility is vital—but so is discipline.
The Promise of Composability
Procurement teams today are building their technology ecosystems with more freedom than ever before. Rather than committing to monolithic suites, many are choosing composable, best-of-breed stacks—mixing intake-to-pay platforms, supplier risk tools, contract lifecycle management systems, and data services tailored to their needs. The goal is clear: build for flexibility, agility, and speed.
In theory, this modular approach should correct the rigidity and vendor lock-in of traditional ERPs and all-in-one procurement suites. Tools can be added or removed as priorities evolve. Integrations are faster, thanks to modern APIs. And user experience is no longer dictated by a single system.
But beneath the surface, there’s a risk that many procurement leaders are starting to recognize: despite the new tech, the problems feel familiar. Systems don’t talk to each other as seamlessly as promised. Approval workflows fall through the cracks. Reporting is fragmented. The user experience becomes disjointed. In short, composable procurement can quickly become a modern version of an old problem.
The Return of the Integration Burden
Two decades ago, Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) made similar promises—interoperability, modularity, reuse. Yet SOA ultimately failed to deliver on its potential. Complexity ballooned, performance suffered, and business users were left navigating disconnected experiences under the illusion of integration.
The same warning signs are emerging in today’s procurement stack. Swapping one rigid platform for many loosely connected ones doesn’t automatically create agility. It creates a new integration burden—this time across SaaS platforms with differing standards, support models, and upgrade cycles.
Integration complexity isn’t just a technical concern. It affects the fundamentals of procurement performance: supplier onboarding times, compliance enforcement, cycle time from requisition to pay, and visibility into total spend. And when data flows are fragile or workflows are misaligned, trust in the system erodes—pushing users back to spreadsheets, workarounds, or email approvals.
Flexibility Without Structure Is Just Noise
Composable procurement isn’t inherently flawed—but it requires maturity. Procurement leaders must approach modular design not just as a tech architecture, but as an operational framework. The guiding question should be: are these tools working together to support the way our people actually work?
That means defining ownership for integration, aligning on data standards early, and investing in orchestration—not just connection. It also means recognizing that adding tools doesn’t always add value. Without governance, modular systems can fragment insight, complicate supplier relationships, and stall transformation.
The lesson from SOA isn’t to avoid modularity—it’s to avoid assuming that modularity solves complexity. Procurement’s real opportunity lies in combining flexibility with cohesion, and empowering teams to act on insight, not just assemble tools. That’s the difference between a composable strategy—and another expensive rebuild in five years.
